funsec mailing list archives
Re: 95% of User Generated Content is spam or malicious
From: "Thomas J. Raef" <traef () wewatchyourwebsite com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 05:39:44 -0700
Very interesting point of view. I've never quite thought about fighting the spammers versus fighting spam, but you do you deliver a very interesting angle. I must look inward to see what I do to fight the spammers. Now, it could also be argued that fighting spam is one's way of fighting spammers. The less effective it is, the more likely it will cease to exist. But to those of you who actually fight the spammers, that will probably seem like a lame excuse to not "take up the cause", and I understand that. I'm not sure I totally buy into the "conspiracy theory" of anti-spam vendors, but I could still have my head in the sand too. I prefer to think of everyone having a just cause, but that's part of my optimistic view as well. I'm the kid in a room full of horse manure thinking, there must be a horse in here somewhere... Thank you for opening my eyes to the difference. I've really never thought of that way. ---------------------------------------- From: "Rich Kulawiec" <rsk () gsp org> Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 11:44 PM To: funsec () linuxbox org Subject: Re: [funsec] 95% of User Generated Content is spam or malicious [ only slightly overdue ] On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 08:42:19AM -0500, Dan Kaminsky wrote:
But this is not the only metric with which to evaluate mail defenses.I disagree. This is the only metric that matters: [snip]
I'm sure to those who only care about their own inboxes, it is. And that's fine for them: they're not required to care about anything else. Just as the only metric that matters to anti-spam vendors is profit. [1] However, to those us who are trying to stop spammers, not merely spam, and who are trying to do so on a global basis, many other things matter. Were it otherwise, I wouldn't need to bother: I "solved", for a reasonable value of "solved", my own spam problems a long time ago. But there's a huge difference between those two goals (above), one that necessitates different strategy and tactics. The problem (okay, one problem of many) is that precious few people grasp the difference and as a result they're in much the same situation as the military: always ready to fight the last war. ---Rsk [1] There are, of course, naive and foolish individuals who believe that anti-spam vendors actually care about curtailing spam. Sensible people know that these vendors don't: the more of it, the better for their bottom line. That's why it's worth noting that no anti-spam vendor is actually working to stop spammers: it's not in their financial interest to do so. It *is* in their financial interest to continue to hawk ever-more-complex and expensive `"solutions" that of course require support and continuous updates to function -- thus making sure that those who buy into them provide a steady revenue stream, and that they face substantial cost/disruption if they choose to change to anything else. This means that they're essentially in a symbiotic relationship with spammers, whether or not either acknowledges it. _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
_______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
Current thread:
- Re: 95% of User Generated Content is spam or malicious Rich Kulawiec (Jun 27)
- Re: 95% of User Generated Content is spam or malicious Bruce Ediger (Jun 28)
- Re: 95% of User Generated Content is spam or malicious der Mouse (Jun 28)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: 95% of User Generated Content is spam or malicious Thomas J. Raef (Jun 28)
- Re: 95% of User Generated Content is spam or malicious Rich Kulawiec (Jun 29)
- Re: 95% of User Generated Content is spam or malicious Bruce Ediger (Jun 28)